I think the wording of the last choice is off. In no scenario are the players ever going to get a bigger payday. Everything about this new CBA will be worse than what they had.

They'd be holding out to lose less, not to get more.

This is true.

I voted for the 3rd option though, maybe because of a bit of hopefullness though. I really hope and somewhat think what will happen is that the NHLPA will be very aggressive with this offer and do their best to negotiate a better deal of the next week, but then whatever is on the table at that time, I bet the players will be given an opportunity to vote.....largely because of the PR move made by the league.

Then NHLPA may get to a spot where they don't feel the offer is good enough, but if the majority of the players are willing to accept it, then that's what they'll do I guess.

they will counter some points of the latest proposal. i would elaborate more later when im more free. i think2 weeks of hardcore negotiations and counters.

There will definitely be some counter points. The 50/50 split sounds nice if the cap wasn't already set at 70.2 mil and how do you be cap compliant without the rollback?

Lets break this down.

Revenues = $3.303 billiondivide by 30 is $110.1 million per teamdivide 50/50 split gets % 55.05 million is what the cap would be set at.

that's a 15 million dollar drop in cap.

55 million divided by 70 million = .7857

So in the end, the revenue gets dropped by 7% overall, but the players salaries would be reduced with the cap by approx 21%, but without the rollback, just some make whole jargen. Slightly less than the 24% last time.

The now expired CBA was drafted and force fed by the owners and the players reluctantly accepted it after losing a season. All the crap they're saying about "escrow" and "make whole" will get us back to where we're at now in 6 years cause the 7th won't be agreed upon cause the owners will want more money back again. If there's a 50/50 split, the the only way the game will continue to grow and have the cap go up is if there's relocation of numerous teams.

With the amount of fans that said they're not gonna return to the NHL, all the growth of the past 6 years crash landed and the revenues and merch sales this year will take a massive hit and there may be more teams to add to the list for relocation along with Phoenix, NYI and New Jersey, who already have a terrible fan base.

The players just want the contracts they signed honoured and the owners have a problem with it. The owners and their GM's are the ones that keep offering players 8-20 year contracts and then come back and say they want the max to be 5 years. The hypocrisy is amazing with this lockout.

The players just want the contracts they signed honoured and the owners have a problem with it.

end rant

Aren't current contracts going to be honoured? As in, the players will all get their contractually agreed upon moneyz eventually? If that's true, what part of the latest NHL proposal is not honouring contracts?

Aren't current contracts going to be honoured? As in, the players will all get their contractually agreed upon moneyz eventually? If that's true, what part of the latest NHL proposal is not honouring contracts?

I don't think they are. That's the confusing part in all of this.

They're not calling it a rollback but I still don't quite understand how the player will be paid out their full contract because it sounds like they're going to take a definite hit in the first few years.

They're not calling it a rollback but I still don't quite understand how the player will be paid out their full contract because it sounds like they're going to take a definite hit in the first few years.

RedWingsDad...this. Everyone is confused as to how teams are going to be cap compliant and how the players are going to keep the money they already got signed on for. the whole thing is eff'd...

Too many "grey areas" in the offer. Did I hear this correctly (maybe I didn't): that in order to play an 82-game schedule and finishing the season per usual, calendar weeks with five games will have to be played? That works out to two weeks per schedule month.

There will definitely be some counter points. The 50/50 split sounds nice if the cap wasn't already set at 70.2 mil and how do you be cap compliant without the rollback?

Lets break this down.

Revenues = $3.303 billiondivide by 30 is $110.1 million per teamdivide 50/50 split gets % 55.05 million is what the cap would be set at.

that's a 15 million dollar drop in cap.

55 million divided by 70 million = .7857

So in the end, the revenue gets dropped by 7% overall, but the players salaries would be reduced with the cap by approx 21%, but without the rollback, just some make whole jargen. Slightly less than the 24% last time.

The now expired CBA was drafted and force fed by the owners and the players reluctantly accepted it after losing a season. All the crap they're saying about "escrow" and "make whole" will get us back to where we're at now in 6 years cause the 7th won't be agreed upon cause the owners will want more money back again. If there's a 50/50 split, the the only way the game will continue to grow and have the cap go up is if there's relocation of numerous teams.

With the amount of fans that said they're not gonna return to the NHL, all the growth of the past 6 years crash landed and the revenues and merch sales this year will take a massive hit and there may be more teams to add to the list for relocation along with Phoenix, NYI and New Jersey, who already have a terrible fan base.

The players just want the contracts they signed honoured and the owners have a problem with it. The owners and their GM's are the ones that keep offering players 8-20 year contracts and then come back and say they want the max to be 5 years. The hypocrisy is amazing with this lockout.

end rant

FYI, that's not how the cap is calculated.

It's: (HRR * Share% - Benefits) / 30 + 8 (or -8 for the floor). We don't know exactly what benefits cost, but it doesn't make that big a difference. Using $3.3B the previously estimated ~$3.45B the $70.2M cap was based on for revenue would put the cap around $62M, but I've heard the league says $59.9M. Probably estimating a lower revenue (not surprising given they claim to have lost $100M from the pre-season). ~edit: Based on revenues staying flat, $3.3B

However, I read that each team can still spend up to the previous $70M cap in the first year. I haven't seen any details on how they plan to handle the overage. They've said all existing contracts will be honored in full, but I'd guess they'll deduct the overage from future years. It's probably not really 50/50 across the board, more like a 54/50/49/49/49/49 kind of thing. Similar to the previous structures offered from both sides, just worded a bit differently. I could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see if the details come out. ~edit: Yes, overage will be deducted from the share in later seasons.

Too many "grey areas" in the offer. Did I hear this correctly (maybe I didn't): that in order to play an 82-game schedule and finishing the season per usual, calendar weeks with five games will have to be played? That works out to two weeks per schedule month.

Starting Nov. 2nd would mean a 23 week season, if they still end it in mid-April. Roughly 3.5 games / week. It's possible 5 games in 7 days could happen, but likely very rare. (Normal schedule was 26 weeks. A little over 3 games / week.)

It's: (HRR * Share% - Benefits) / 30 + 8 (or -8 for the floor). We don't know exactly what benefits cost, but it doesn't make that big a difference. Using $3.3B for revenue would put the cap around $62M, but I've heard the league says $59.9M. Probably estimating a lower revenue (not surprising given they claim to have lost $100M from the pre-season).

However, I read that each team can still spend up to the previous $70M cap in the first year. I haven't seen any details on how they plan to handle the overage. They've said all existing contracts will be honored in full, but I'd guess they'll deduct the overage from future years. It's probably not really 50/50 across the board, more like a 54/50/49/49/49/49 kind of thing. Similar to the previous structures offered from both sides, just worded a bit differently. I could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see if the details come out.

Starting Nov. 2nd would mean a 23 week season, if they still end it in mid-April. Roughly 3.5 games / week. It's possible 5 games in 7 days could happen, but likely very rare. (Normal schedule was 26 weeks. A little over 3 games / week.)

That salary cap stuff the way the proposal drew it up is confusing as all hell. I'll just wait on the sidelines with that one until they give us a number and start playing. No more trying to figure it out.

As for the possible 5 game weeks....playoffs should be fast paced and exciting when everyone's got their own oxygen tank on the bench

Either way, change a few things in the NHL's proposal and drop the puck!

If that's true, the question becomes... is it reasonable to expect that contracts will be honoured based on previous growth patterns?

Good question, cause the NHL's growth hit the wall as soon as Buttman started spouting about another lockout and then did just that. The non die hard fans are abandoning ship and it'll take more than adding shootouts to the NHL to lure them back again.

If that's true, the question becomes... is it reasonable to expect that contracts will be honoured based on previous growth patterns?

That's not really the point. The point is that is that the players will be paying themselves to cover intitial shortfalls. If 50% fo revenues are not enough this year to cover salaries, the players will just take less money later to cover the difference....so they might get 45% of revnues in a later year for example. The league suggesting no rollbacks is completely bogus.

What sucks is being a fan of a league that can boast the most intelligent players in pro sports. This can make for longer lockout periods. And also having Buttman as the mouthpiece of the owners. How do I get my keyboard to stop underlining everything?

It's making me very scared that the majority of the players are saying it's not a good deal. Now I'm not so sure about a deal getting done.

I'm somewhat worried about that, but at the same time, understand that the players cannot come out and say they like the deal, it would kill any ability to negotiate off of it. I'm hoping the players don't love the current deal, but are hoping some negotiations will take place this week and they will accept wherever they get next week. Wishful thinking, but that's what I'm going with for now.

It's making me very scared that the majority of the players are saying it's not a good deal. Now I'm not so sure about a deal getting done.

Well I think they're still looking at it from the position of why they should have to take a major paycut when revenue has increased so much and the league hasn't presented great evidence that it's necessary. The arguments are basically that 50/50 seems fair and it's what other league's are doing.

Eventually though I'm guessing they'll realize they're going to lose no matter what. This is their best chance to limit how much.